1st round picks

[LaxC21]

sohorightnow...I'm not trying to be biased in anyway, just stating what is based on facts. A&M is not a top 5 team and I am not saying they should be. However, they are a good team and could be competitive with the top 5...especially this year. A&M still beat CU (#1 at the time), then traveled and lost to ASU and Arizona who were both ranked in the top 10 this year. They went on to play a competitive non conference schedule to prepare for the tournament knowing their conference is weak. What else do you want them to do? Should they be like Utah and play impossible schedule, then miss out on the tournament? I think not. So, when you look at wins and losses, you see that A&M had 1 quality win and 2 quality losses. They were 13-2 and did what was asked of them. Furthermore, I believe if A&M was ranked in the top 16 or top 20, as most team are coming off a tournament year, a win against CU would have most likely put them in the 10-13 range where loses to Arizona and ASU would have not hurt as much, thus allowing them to have a better draw. I don't see how you can argue against that. I don't know anyone who would honestly say that being unranked at the beginning of the season is not an almost impossible uphill battle. If A&M is #16 and beat the #1, their probably going to be in the top 10, ask Oregon. Finally, I can't believe that you can't, in any way, concede that A&M could be as good as Georgia, Lindenwood, Florida, Northeaster, or Boston College. Look at the records, and look at the schedules. If you can't, then you have fallen victim to the biased opinion. I'm not saying in anyway those teams don't deserve their spots, just saying it is too bad for A&M that they pulled BYU in the first round. A pull against #4 and back would have been a much more competitive draw and given A&M a better opportunity to make a run. I believe the the (5, 12, 4, 13) has the easiest run to the final 4. But, oh well, they have an opportunity to demonstrate if they deserve a better ranking next week. If they keep close, to me thats a win.

[COlaxer]

I believe the the (5, 12, 4, 13) has the easiest run to the final 4.

Unless you are in the top 4, doesn't that automatically make it the easiest run?

[sohotrightnow]

LaxC21 wrote:
I believe the the (5, 12, 4, 13) has the easiest run to the final 4.


Unless you are in the top 4, doesn't that automatically make it the easiest run?

I believe he means that bracket would be considered the easiest/least competitive bracket to get to the final 4.

[univduke21]

Just a heads up CU was #2 when A&M beat them I believe.

[`MM9]

True but i think it was a day or two after #1 Oregon lost.

and CU was 2

[sohotrightnow]

sohorightnow...I'm not trying to be biased in anyway, just stating what is based on facts. A&M is not a top 5 team and I am not saying they should be. However, they are a good team and could be competitive with the top 5...especially this year. A&M still beat CU (#1 at the time), then traveled and lost to ASU and Arizona who were both ranked in the top 10 this year. They went on to play a competitive non conference schedule to prepare for the tournament knowing their conference is weak. What else do you want them to do? Should they be like Utah and play impossible schedule, then miss out on the tournament? I think not. So, when you look at wins and losses, you see that A&M had 1 quality win and 2 quality losses. They were 13-2 and did what was asked of them. Furthermore, I believe if A&M was ranked in the top 16 or top 20, as most team are coming off a tournament year, a win against CU would have most likely put them in the 10-13 range where loses to Arizona and ASU would have not hurt as much, thus allowing them to have a better draw. I don't see how you can argue against that. I don't know anyone who would honestly say that being unranked at the beginning of the season is not an almost impossible uphill battle. If A&M is #16 and beat the #1, their probably going to be in the top 10, ask Oregon. Finally, I can't believe that you can't, in any way, concede that A&M could be as good as Georgia, Lindenwood, Florida, Northeaster, or Boston College. Look at the records, and look at the schedules. If you can't, then you have fallen victim to the biased opinion. I'm not saying in anyway those teams don't deserve their spots, just saying it is too bad for A&M that they pulled BYU in the first round. A pull against #4 and back would have been a much more competitive draw and given A&M a better opportunity to make a run. I believe the the (5, 12, 4, 13) has the easiest run to the final 4. But, oh well, they have an opportunity to demonstrate if they deserve a better ranking next week. If they keep close, to me thats a win.

I understand you are passionate about your team. However, I am looking at this from an outsider's perspective. A&M beat Texas by 2 goals for the LSA title a little over a week ago and gave up 13 goals. I am sorry, but Texas is not very good, and you will be hard pressed to find many voters who think that a 2 goal win over Texas is deserving of a seed better than 16. Perhaps A&M is deserving of a 12 or 13 seed, but I still think they would have their hands full with Michigan or Santa Barbara. I think the other teams you mentioned who were less deserving of higher seeds played comparable OOC schedules to A&M, but they were also challenged more within their own league as well.

[dtrain34]

Did someone say "Suspect" at best............................

Boston College, Minnesota-Duluth, Lindenwood, and A&M are in trouble.
I think that Northeastern will lose, but they will surprise people. If there is a big upset, this is the one in the making. Not because Michigan is bad, they're not (anyone that thinks they are is out of their mind), Northeastern is actually that good this year.

But, no one outside of the WCLL , the RMLC, and the SELC (with the exception of the previously mentioned Michigan and now the last few years, Oregon), has any room to say anything about how good your squad is. Do something in the tournament for once. Forget the players on these teams for a second, bottomline, the coaching in the other leagues is not on the same level.

[CATLAX MAN]

Did someone say "Suspect" at best............................

Boston College, Minnesota-Duluth, Lindenwood, and A&M are in trouble.

Hate to disagree with you here, Dtrain, but UMD is not in trouble. The others probably are.

[More Cowbell]

Did someone say "Suspect" at best............................

Boston College, Minnesota-Duluth, Lindenwood, and A&M are in trouble.
I think that Northeastern will lose, but they will surprise people. If there is a big upset, this is the one in the making. Not because Michigan is bad, they're not (anyone that thinks they are is out of their mind), Northeastern is actually that good this year.

Not sure how you think that "Northeastern is actually that good this year" but think that BC is "suspect at best"....last I checked BC beat NU twice this year...do you have some other reason for feeling that BC is suspect?

[LaxZac02]

Clearly the PCLL A teams are just being underated. That will make it so much better when both teams win their first round.

Did someone say "Suspect" at best............................

Boston College, Minnesota-Duluth, Lindenwood, and A&M are in trouble.
I think that Northeastern will lose, but they will surprise people. If there is a big upset, this is the one in the making. Not because Michigan is bad, they're not (anyone that thinks they are is out of their mind), Northeastern is actually that good this year.

Not sure how you think that "Northeastern is actually that good this year" but think that BC is "suspect at best"....last I checked BC beat NU twice this year...do you have some other reason for feeling that BC is suspect?

[LaxC21]

I don't think because a league is not up to the same standard as other leagues, that discredits you from being able to talk about lacrosse and how good you think a team is or is not. If you have seen teams play, when you talk to other coaches, and you have been involved in lacrosse, you can make whatever accusations you want. Also, to say that the coaching in other leagues isn't as good as the WCLL or RMLL is a ridiculous. Maybe as a whole, the coaching and talent is better in the WCLL and RMLL, but don't discredit a whole entire conference or group of coaches because of a couple of bad teams. I would argue that there have been several teams over the last few years that came out of lower tier leagues and have competed very well with less talent than the WCLL and RMLL teams because of the coaching. Look at BC, FSU, Northeastern, UMD, Lindenwood over the last few years. Heck, look at the standings this year. There is more paridy in the league than ever before. Is that becasue there is so much more talent in the other leagues? Probably not. It has more to do with better coaching overall and better organizations.

Regarding the TAMU thing, to beat a dead horse. You can't be objective and start pointing to just the score of games to determine how good a squad is. Yeah, 15-13. Where you there? Did you see A&M route UT in the first half 11-4? If you did you wouldn't be talking about it. A&M's biggest weakness is its ability to sustain the momentum for a full game. They have played very well through 3 quaters but have given up a stupid amount of goals when they are a head (CU, ASU, Arizona, UT, etc.). TAMU quit playing for margin of victory a few years ago, and started playing to win games and to prepare for the tournament by playing as many kids as possible throughout the season so they had more depth come tournament time. They have a very young team and needed to get a lot of playing time under their young players in a short amount of time. It may be a bad strategy in your opinion, but that was a discision the team made. I agree with your assement that the other teams played comparable schedules and were challenged more often in their league. That is why I said that the other teams were deserving of their rankings. I do have to disagree that A&M would not match-up well with Michigan or Santa Barbara. I think both of those are the type of match-up A&M needs to do well in the first round. I think there is so much difference in their styles, it gives A&M the best chance. CSU, BYU and from the looks of it, Oregon, all have the ability to run and gun with anyone and are willing to do it. Nothing against Michigan and Santa Barbara, but they are more often willing to stick to what they do best, which is control the game. Anyways, this thing started because I was merely wishing for a different match-up because I believe A&M will not match-up well with BYU over 4 quarters. They are too athletic and too deep and it can go down hill fast if A&M doesn't play 4 quaters of lacrosse. Thanks for the argument. Next week will be interesting...hopefully.

[COlaxer]

. They have played very well through 3 quaters but have given up a stupid amount of goals when they are a head (CU, ASU, Arizona, UT, etc.).

At the end of the third, down by 5 with U of A and down by 3 with ASU. Is this "ahead" for TA&M? I am failing to grasp your points, maybe an explanation?

[yourmom]

Forget the players on these teams for a second, bottomline, the coaching in the other leagues is not on the same level.

Please define "coaching"

[Brent Burns]

Granted, everyone is more interested in MCLA Division A tourney teams, but what about the MCLA Division B tourney teams. Which Division B team is going to win the title? With Southwestern coming in as #11 when Calvin declined to be in the tournament, does that change your perspective of who would do well in the Division B tournament?

[scooter]

i have westminster and dayton in the finals.

thats just me though